Separate sub-forum for tanks and AT assets?

[SEAR]

Tanks may have targets for standard AT weapons on sides. These can simulate AT guns or "bazookas" hits - although for none of them any artificial targets should be necessary (in ideal world), just the amount of hits should count; but I understand the concept.
This AT grenade will attack from the top. And it had so much penetrating power (in reality), that any hull or turret hit was a straight kill even on heavy tanks. And the blue powder smoke should indicate the hit better than anything else. That is even if the rule was two AT grenade hits to destroy a heavy tank.

Yes, for tanks with netting on the top (which is kinda strange), it may not work that well. Still it will most likely work as it is very fragile and will just mess up the crew. 20 ft is unusable distance for this weapon, you need at least 40 ft to throw it semi-effectively. 20 m effective range = 65 ft.

[Seajay]

The problem with the idea is how scoring will work. The tanks generally have a target on them you need to hit, which isn't exactly easy with normal launchers. Something falling down or lobbed would be hard to track and score. Additionally for safety the hard targets are just that, hard, so top down might just be ruled unsafe because it is harder to control. A lot of vehicles just have the netting on top since you are not supposed to shoot paintballs at the gunners and drivers.

Some fields will even kick you off the field if you are more than 20ft from the tank, so you are going to need a good arm. Not so much the tank approaching your hidey hole, but if you run up to the tank and get close to it refs don't like that at all.

[SEAR]

It is just the impact (it is supposed to impact on vehicles ideally) and soft/fragile warhead does the trick. 112 grams is the powder filling and 40 grams is the rest of the mass. Less than the bigger paintball grenades.

[Alexndl]

What is the material used in the construction and what is the weight? Amd is there a 12g in it or its just the impact?

video look fun
But I agree with Grendel safety need to be check and have agreement with the field you are planning to use it

[SEAR]

The problem with that as well as other attempts to build mortars, grenade launchers or other artillery is there is a chance a player will be struck from an object out of the sky. This as a general principle is not allowed due to liability issues. While I personally do not see a particular large "risk" with this in today's culture ANY liability risk appears to be unacceptable.

Well a traditional paintball grenade could hit you from top as well when lobbed high. With a very similar force as our AT grenade. I don't see the issue here, really.

[Grendel]

The problem with that as well as other attempts to build mortars, grenade launchers or other artillery is there is a chance a player will be struck from an object out of the sky. This as a general principle is not allowed due to liability issues. While I personally do not see a particular large "risk" with this in today's culture ANY liability risk appears to be unacceptable.

[SEAR]

Let me please "revive" this thread. Amongst more complex things I'm working on, I made an advanced prototype of a German Panzerwurfmine (PWM), "kurz" (canvas-stabilized) variant. Originally it was a weapon slightly preceding Panzerfaust, used to the war's end by tank-hunter teams. And it was copied and used by USSR in mass as RPG-43/RPG-6 even long after the war.
It was the AT grenade meant to be thrown in high arc, falling to the tank/vehicle vertically and penetrating its weaker top armor (PWM had penetration about 140 mm, which was pretty devastating).
Now the principle works quite well and with several experiments I made it stabilized, even though it is very light compared to the original. With the effective range around 20 meters it is not far from the original (~25 m)

Would you imagine using it on big games in US with tanks/vehicles present? It is supposed to replace some arbitrary ways of eliminating vehicles (smoke grenades, bangers, or none at all), but not compete much with Nerf football launchers or our future Panzerfaust with longer effective range and more practical flatter trajectory.

Here is an innocent video from the prototype testing: https://youtu.be/7-ZVxtSK2C8
The body is reusable and "warheads" are quickly replaceable.

[SEAR]

Chalk might work. Paintballs embedded into the nose of rockets has been tried and did not work well. Taking out buildings with AT is another matter. Considering some of the buildings are so covered by paint that chalk wouldn't make a discernible mark, refs in that circumstance would still be needed. As far as tanks being just MG bunkers, that has not been my experience. Especially at OK D-Day, the tanks are more than mobile bunkers. I was involved in a number of engagements between three to five tanks from each side. I guess the effectiveness of tanks depends on the game's rules and the ingenuity of the tankers.
custar

Paintballs in the nose are worthless, I agree. But the hit with the chalk round makes a big puff of colored cloud. On our games, players themselves are often able to tell the hit and react accordingly. The same with targeting infantry at long distances, which is the greatest benefit of this ammo.
You can have tank vs tank engagements with foam rounds, but you are stick to paintball markers against infantry.

Agreed on that. There are not a lot of Havocs available for sale. A new supplier would be welcome.

BTW, at OK D-Day AT was marker-in-a-tube. The tube had to have some semblance to a Panzerfaust or Panzershrek for German player and a PIAT or bazooka for Allied players. It is a lot different hunting tanks when the AT player and the tank's AP have the same range.
custar

My idea is more about shooting Panzerfaust 30k or PIAT, where the whole realistic-looking warhead and not just a paintball or a foam round comes from the inside and is able to hit target at 30-50 yards. It is not only about the visual impression, but about the whole experience of using the weapon and shooting it

[custar]

I mean innovations like marking chalk rounds so there is no need for referees to be present everywhere (vehicle hits will be very well visible). And that could potentially enable anti-personnel usage at long distances and more realistic tactical impact of tanks (so tanks won't be just MG bunkers anymore).

Chalk might work. Paintballs embedded into the nose of rockets has been tried and did not work well. Taking out buildings with AT is another matter. Considering some of the buildings are so covered by paint that chalk wouldn't make a discernible mark, refs in that circumstance would still be needed. As far as tanks being just MG bunkers, that has not been my experience. Especially at OK D-Day, the tanks are more than mobile bunkers. I was involved in a number of engagements between three to five tanks from each side. I guess the effectiveness of tanks depends on the game's rules and the ingenuity of the tankers.

Hand-held AT weapons could use some invention as well (they may be styled as PzF or RPG, but still shoot the same foam rounds).

Agreed on that. There are not a lot of Havocs available for sale. A new supplier would be welcome.

BTW, at OK D-Day AT was marker-in-a-tube. The tube had to have some semblance to a Panzerfaust or Panzershrek for German player and a PIAT or bazooka for Allied players. It is a lot different hunting tanks when the AT player and the tank's AP have the same range.

Effective and safe mortar systems with tactical usage? Again, almost none.

Agreed on this also. The only ones I know of were made by Scepter, and IIRC, only about 200 total were made. The mortars worked better than the hand-held 37mm launcher.

That is what I mean by the lack of innovation

Thanks for the discussion and the thoughts. Hopefully, paintball will recover to the point there is money to be made in innovations in this area.

custar

[NONOBLITUS]

Europe has some fun looking fields , at least from what I have seen in videos.

[SEAR]

Let's see what happens first. You coming to Europe or my creations reaching US

[NONOBLITUS]

Would love to attend one of these events. They look like a blast.

[SEAR]

I mean innovations like marking chalk rounds so there is no need for referees to be present everywhere (vehicle hits will be very well visible). And that could potentially enable anti-personnel usage at long distances and more realistic tactical impact of tanks (so tanks won't be just MG bunkers anymore).

Hand-held AT weapons could use some invention as well (they may be styled as PzF or RPG, but still shoot the same foam rounds). Even simple and effective short-range AT grenades (such as Panzerwurfmine) - nonexistent!

Effective and safe mortar systems with tactical usage? Again, almost none. That is what I mean by the lack of innovation

My personal goal is to merge paintball and WWII reenactment (strongly emphasizing paintball part of course). But this is a long run as well.

[custar]

Yep, Havoc launchers are the standard because just about every field accepts 2* nerf and KNA rockets. I haven't personally seen a JCS launcher on the field since, well, the last time I used one. Sear, what innovation(s) do you have in mind?

custar

[NONOBLITUS]

https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCKr5t0MR1tDKw3P4XpmHydw